Metacognitive Defibrillator & Nutwerx Squirrelizer; Surrealist Review of the World Nest (v2.3); Unofficial recycler of the disposable society; anti-judeo-christo-islamo-fascist-zombie-brigade resistance cell; Twenty Three Thousand Armed Buddhas; Nanobeachhead of Optimysticism; & future home of the manned mission to dwarf planet Eris. Nothing to see here, people; move along. Do not attempt to adjust your monitor. We control the html; we control the css. Submitted for your perusal. WTFWIT?

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Breasts were in the news again recently as a nurse-in was held to demand the rights of nursing mothers to breast feed in public. I can't really imagine why someone would object to human breasts. How can you keep them a secret, anyway? It's not enough to be anti-woman and anti-human, this is downright anti-mammalian. You might as well just step forward and reveal yourself as a shape-shifting reptilian if you are going to criticize an innocent mother giving breast milk to a baby! Let the Men In Black deport you back to your quadrant!

On reflection, I realize that reptilian shape-shifters would not reveal themselves from their positions of social power by the blatantly reptilian act of criticizing mammalian breast exposure. The culprits must be another subset of the population. Perhaps they are speculators hoping to gain economically from anti-breastiness. Make people insecure about revealing their own breasts, so they buy formula. Is Nestle the hidden hand behind this whole uproar? Would these same people object if it were not a real breast, but a perfect simulacrum, the iLact8, which looks, feels, tastes, and lactates exactly like a real breast. Introduced by Steve Jobs in conjunction with Disney, the iLact8 could be worn outside the clothing, attached to a business suit with velcro straps. That would weaken the bond of baby and mother. Looking exactly the same, what advantage would it have? Why is real bad and artificial good?

In a related news story, European governments are considering laws to ban the veil. Supporters cite the need for face-to-face communication, the need to see the face for identification purposes, and other excuses. Just scratch the surface of this story to see the hate behind the lie. Do we say these same things in regard to trick-or-treaters, skiers, surgeons, burn victims, people with amputated noses, hideously disfigured persons, and other people who wear masks for other reasons? No. To be fair, let's consider the KKK. As uniformed members of a terrorist organization, they should be detained as illegal combatants if anyone should. Women wearing veils are not necessarily proclaiming membership in a terror organization, such as the Neanderthal Atomic Terror Organization. At the very least (or most?), you may need to pass a law that would require them to reveal their face to law enforcement for identification purposes. Alternatively, a veiled person could carry a biometric ID linked to a fingerprint or palm print, while the officer could be issued with a reader to check the ID against the person. There are culturally sensitive ways to handle this. It is the responsibility of politicians to find these ways and protect the rights of all the people, not to aggravate divisions in society and use the majority as a wedge to power their political engine. The cost is a thousand-year war of civilizations. Just leave people alone. Do we really want to go out of our way to piss (a(nother) billion) people off?

In conclusion, more women should wear veils and breast-feed in public. Just assume the veiled one is hideously deformed either physically or psychically, if it helps you to leave them alone. Nestle, eat your heart out. May the parks, fields, offices, and public transit abound with veiled, topless, breast-feeding women.